The United States Supreme Court has upheld a federal law requiring TikTok to divest from its Communist Chinese ownership or face a ban in the country.
The Supreme Court determined that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act is constitutional in a unanimous per curiam opinion released Friday morning.
The justices noted, “There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community. But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.”
They concluded, “For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed.”
Launched in 2016 by ByteDance, TikTok is a widely-used video-sharing social media app that reportedly has around 170 million monthly users in the U.S. and over 1 billion users worldwide. The app has faced controversy regarding its impact on youth mental health, its connections to the Communist Chinese government, and concerns about the spread of misinformation.
In April, President Joe Biden signed bipartisan legislation mandating TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell the app within 270 days or face a national ban. The law prohibits TikTok and other “foreign adversary controlled applications,” particularly those controlled by the People’s Republic of China, from being included in U.S.-based app stores.
ByteDance and TikTok filed complaints against the Biden administration, arguing that the law infringed upon the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In December, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the ban, with Senior Judge Douglas Ginsburg writing the opinion. Ginsburg noted, “The Act was the culmination of extensive, bipartisan action by the Congress and by successive presidents. It was carefully crafted to deal only with control by a foreign adversary.”
He further explained, “[The Act] was part of a broader effort to counter a well-substantiated national security threat posed by the PRC. Under these circumstances, the provisions of the Act that are before us withstand the most searching review.”
Ginsburg emphasized that the government’s interest in halting Communist China’s “efforts to collect data of and about persons in the United States” and “covertly manipulating content on TikTok” constituted a “compelling national security interest.”
Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, with attorney Noel Francisco representing TikTok and other plaintiffs.
Francisco argued, “TikTok incorporated as a U.S. company speaking in the United States. The Act requires it to go dark unless ByteDance executes a qualified divestiture. Whether you call that a ban or a divestiture, one thing is clear: It's a burden on TikTok's speech.” He added that the government’s motivation seemed to be the speech itself, fearing that Americans could be swayed by Chinese misinformation.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar of the U.S. Department of Justice defended the ban, stating that “the Chinese government's control of TikTok poses a grave threat to national security.” She continued, “TikTok collects unprecedented amounts of personal data. TikTok's immense data set would give the PRC a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment, and espionage.”
